update_document

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses a non-obvious optimistic-concurrency constraint: confirmation requires the preview's modified token. It does not mention permissions, side effects, reversibility, or what happens if the token is stale or missing.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It clearly separates the core action from the confirmation requirement via a semicolon.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

This is a mutation tool with five parameters, nested values, no annotations, and zero schema description coverage. The description provides only one workflow detail, leaving important context like permissions, side effects, parameter meaning for doctype/name/values, and error behavior missing. Output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but the call context is still incomplete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for all parameters. It only indirectly explains 'confirm' and 'expected_modified' via 'confirmation' and 'modified token'; it says nothing about 'doctype', 'name', 'values', or the nested object, leaving most parameters undocumented.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a clear action ('Preview or update') and resource ('record'), so an agent can grasp the core operation. However, it uses the generic term 'record' rather than 'document', and it does not distinguish this tool from siblings like get_document or create_document.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies a two-step preview-then-confirm workflow by saying confirmation requires the preview's modified token. It does not explain when to use this tool rather than get_document or create_document, nor does it state any exclusions or prerequisites.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.